The
following paper was accepted for presentation at the 12th
International Conference on Thinking in Melbourne, Australia (2005).

Abstract

Thinking has been seen as the
natural outcome of in-depth studying by many teachers.

This paper examines the
relationship between studying and thinking and whether "studying" is the
main road to thinking compared to other cognitive processes in a typical
school context.

It presents an experiment,
carried out at an Italian secondary school, which involved 141
fourteen-fifteen year old students divided into three groups.

Students were given a story whose conclusion had
been cut out. They had the identical task of foreseeing the ending
logically, but following different instructions, one of which implied
"studying" the tale in their usual manner.

The groups reached the same
good knowledge of the elements necessary for envisaging the conclusion,
but the results of their thinking were quite different depending on the
conditions.

"Studying" was the worst
occasion for thinking.

In the same context, Bono's
CoRT lessons have been tested as being highly efficacious for looking
ahead to see the consequences and sequels.

Introduction

What does "Thinking" mean?

According to F. Bartlett, "Thinking" occurs when there are gaps in the
available information. In fact, "Thinking" can be briefly defined as: "The
extension of evidence in accord with that evidence so as to fill up gaps
in the evidence"[1].

Normally the task is carried
out fruitfully only if a series of intermediate, interconnected steps that
can lead to the most appropriate conclusion is followed. In other words,
it is difficult to try to foresee the solution haphazardly, without
considering the "clues" that could point to some direction, to a path. At
times a fortuitous solution may be found, but then the point of arrival is
convincing only because all the intermediate links are, later, retraced
and clarified.

Gaps,
according to Bartlett, can be filled in three different ways:

1.by interpolation (in a given numerical series there is, for
example, an empty space, a missing number that has to be identified and
inserted at that point of the sequence, which then continues);

2.by extrapolation (a numerical series, for example, is developed up
to a certain position and then is interrupted: the reader is asked to
continue it until a logical terminus has been reached);

3.by "manipulation" (when all the elements of a situation are
probably given, but either the relationship- or relationships- among them
has to be found or new, more satisfactory solutions, beyond the existing
ones, are to be discovered)[2].

On the other side, if
information were complete, the world would be different. If the Truth were
in front of us, without any missing part (the category of the missing part
has no relevance: it might be even a memory deficit, when "thinking" is
performed by drawing data from one's mind), there would not be any need
for thinking: everything would happen as if by "instinct", automatically.

True thinking is
productive, generative.

Undoubtedly, the most
difficult task to carry out of the three above-mentioned typologies is the
third, because one has to go beyond what is present. In this last instance
it is not any longer a matter of finding the right solution according to
the principles inscribed in the facts in front of us, but of discovering
new rules on which to base the completion.

In
this case de Bono[3]
would speak of the necessity for lateral thinking or, to apply one
of his acronyms (utilised by him to label and make the "tools" to direct
one's mind towards definite objectives immediately recognisable), for an
APC (Alternatives, Possibilities,
Choices).

In a
paper [4],
presented by this author at the Fifth International Conference on Creative
Thinking, organised by the University of Malta in June 2004, the
occurrence of lateral, productive thinking in a typical school
environment was examined through an experiment. Thanks to it, it was seen
that even the best students are incapable of innovative thinking, of going
beyond the solution that seems satisfactory at a glance.

Many
experiments[5]
have already confirmed that even in the wider social context in which we
live, we see what we are accustomed to seeing: our mind structures, among
the different elements in front of us, select the ones that are consistent
with our framework, while the others are being, more or less knowingly,
discarded. To discern them, we should give them specific value, but this
does not occur unless we are forced to do it!

In the present paper the
relationship between some conditions, which are common or potentially so
in the school environment, and thinking, is examined.

In this
case, the involved thinking is of the second type, of the extrapolative
category (or, to use de Bono's[6]
terminology, capable of C&S- Consequences
and Sequels-, that is of foreseeing what will come after).

In other words, during the
study it was investigated to what extent students were able to anticipate
the logical continuation of a story on the basis of the available
elements, given the diverse situations they had been assigned to.

Is projective thinking
unaffected by these situations?

To this end the following
experiment was organised.

The experiment

The experiment was conducted
in the second week of December 2004.

141 fourteen and fifteenyear old students,
belonging to 8 different classes (five first classes and three second
classes) of the Istituto Tecnico Statale Commerciale "F.Besta",
a high school in Ragusa, Italy, were assigned to three different
conditions. They were studying, playing, and reading.
For all of them the experiment foresaw two stages, of which more details
will be given below in a specific section.

During the first phase of the
experience, when the copy of an "incomplete" tale was distributed, no one
really knew what the final aim was (that is to predict the conclusion), to
avoid mixing up the three conditions because of this knowledge. Therefore
students were cognisant only of first stage's goals, which were specific
to each condition.

The real, common objective
was revealed later, at the beginning of the second phase, after the tales
had been withdrawn except in one case. Students were then told to infer
the conclusion of the tale, whose ending had been removed, from some given
elements.

Clearly the story culmination
could be envisaged only by a careful consideration of some "clues" in
which the passage was rich.

On some occasions conditions
were implemented by dividing the specific class into two equivalent halves
(according to the knowledge that the teacher had of everyone's capacity
for logical reasoning and comprehension), and assigning each part to a
condition at random (thus putting only two of the three levels into
effect).

On other occasions
conditions were fulfilled one at a time in an entire class, but care was
then taken of final equivalence as far as pupils' abilities were
concerned.

Let us
examine studying, playing, and reading in detail.

The three conditions:
First phase

The different instructions in
the three conditions were given only in writing, together with a
copy of the "interrupted" story. Therefore none of the students knew that
they had possibly been assigned to a different condition from that of the
classmates.

In the first instance(studying), it was claimed that it was a learning test: each of the
concerned pupils had to study the given passage in the best possible way
and in their usual manner. It was also stated that the story was
incomplete because the continuation lay on another page, which would be
handed out later. It was finally communicated that, once the allotted time
for study expired, pupils would be handed out written questions on the
content (at least this was announced at that moment), without being able
to consult the text anymore, and the results would be important for
end-of-the-term markings. 52 students were given these rules.

In the second instance(playing), the instructions were that they had to read the given
text carefully, in order to be able later, without having the tale with
them any longer, to take part in some sort of unspecified play (perhaps a
role-play), based on the text. The tale was incomplete and the reasons
given for it were the same as before. It was announced that this
assignment was important because it would have an impact on
end-of-the-term evaluation. 50 pupils worked under this condition.

In the third instance(reading) the same "interrupted" text was distributed; this time
students had the only task of reading it carefully, because this would be
important in an unspecified way for end-of-the-term assessment. At that
moment no other instruction was given. 39 students participated in
this instance.

The overall total of the
three situations was therefore 141.

The remark on the importance
for the end-of-the term evaluation (present in each condition) was added
to have comparability as far as "performance" anxiety, which can be an
impeding factor when the ability to think is involved, was concerned.

The time assigned to all for
this part of the task was 20 minutes (which were more than enough);
afterwards, the second stage took place.

The three conditions,
second phase: Thinking

At the beginning of the
second stage, the copies with the story were withdrawn with the exception
of the students in the third condition, to whom the tale was left.

All of the students were
asked how many already knew the story just read (which had been taken from
a book) and the names of these pupils were written down to exclude them
from final computation. It is clear that if students were cognisant of the
"end", this knowledge would nullify their test.

Blank
sheets with the instructions were then distributed to everyone: pupils
were invited to complete the story logically and consequentially, on the
basis of the elementsalready given in the part handed out before (within
the assigned time: 15-20 minutes, flexible according to necessity). As a
matter of fact no specific question was asked on content at this time,
because it could inappropriately direct pupils' attention towards some
specific directions.

The students to whom the
"shortened" tale had been left (reading) received the same
instructions as the others.

Only at the end, when
everyone had handed in their sheets, students were orally tested to assess
their knowledge about the important elements for their final objective
(that is to foresee the conclusion).

No significant difference
regarding this knowledge among the three conditions was found.

Similarly the trends (which
will be discussed later) were roughly the same across the classes and the
involved ages (14-15 years old).

Now it is necessary to go
into the some more details about the story before examining the results.

The
chosen tale, whose ending had been removed, was "The Long Voyage" by the
Italian writer Leonardo Sciascia[7].

To assess to what extent the
particular story picked out could have an impact on the experiment, a
second suitably "shortened" tale ("Chichibio" by Giovanni Boccaccio,
another Italian writer) was selected and tried on 39 students: the results
however did not change in comparison with the first instance.

The summary and some excerpts
(the most significant ones up to the removed part) of Sciascia's tale
follow; then Bocaccio's story (translated into English by the present
author) is integrally displayed.

"The Long Voyage" by
Leonardo Sciascia tells the story, set some decades ago, of a group of
Sicilians that one night embarked between Gela and Licata (in Sicily) to
sail illegally in a steamer for the United States. The man (his name was
Melfa) who, for money, would transport them up to a beach in New Jersey,
recommended that all those who had relatives residing in America should
write to them and establish the Trenton railway station (New York) as the
meeting point.

After an 11-day crossing, the
emigrants were summoned on the deck by the boat owner who showed them
America in the distance and invited them to get ready for disembarkation.
Thus, after landing, they started off to get to the established point of
arrival.

At
this point the plot stopped and students were invited to complete the
story logically.

As a matter of fact, it has
a sad conclusion: those poor Sicilians had been cheated and after an
11-day voyage off the Sicilian coast they had been brought back to the
island!

The clues leading to this
conclusion were spread across the assigned text.

If pupils thought over the
"traces" included before the interruption, they would be able to outline
the conclusion.

The most important ones are
indicated here:

-the sea voyage lasted less than foreseen;

-the doubt that the land might not be the United Stated was cast
explicitly by one of the emigrants, because in the sea there are "neither
roads nor paths"[8]
and it is easy to get lost;

-Mr. Melfa in answering patently pitied him and soon after revealed
irony in his remark on the difference of a "horizon like this"[9];

-when they started going, after landing, the first car they met on
the road seemed a "Fiat seicento", while the second one looked like a
"Fiat 1100". And this was very strange for the United States!

-there were road signs that displayed the names of two towns:
students did not know these names, but knew that two of the emigrants had
this reaction after reading one of them: " - this name is not new to me"

Corrado
Gianfigliazzi, having hawked at cranes near Peretola once and killed one
of them, gave it to his good cook, named Chichibìo, to have it served for
dinner. Now while Chichibìo was cooking it, a girl, called Brunetta, whom
he had madly fallen in love with, passed by. She on smelling something
really good went into the kitchen and begged Chichibìo to give her a
crane's leg. Chichibìo, in order not to annoy his beloved friend, gave her
the leg even if he knew that this would get him into trouble with his
master. As a matter of fact, when dinner was ready, Corrado noticed that a
leg was missing. Thus he called Chichibio and asked him what had happened
to the other leg. -Oh, sir- the lying cook answered - cranes have only one
leg and one foot! - What are you saying?- Corrado burst out - Do you
think perhaps that this is the first crane that I have seen? - Oh sir- the
cook calmly replied - It is really the way I am saying, and I can prove it
by showing you a live crane.

At that moment, Corrado, for
sake of peace and, what mattered more, because he had dinner guests,
decided to end that discussion, after adding, though: - Tomorrow, then,
you'll show me the cranes that have only one leg, but if cranes have two
legs, as I say, I swear that I will beat you in a way that you will
remember for your entire life!

The day after they went to a
river, where cranes usually stopped. Chichibìo was more dead than alive
with fright: at this point he did not know how to make up for the lie.

Luckily near the water he
spotted twelve cranes that slept and stood only on a foot as they usually
do when they sleep. He showed them hastily and triumphantly to Corrado,
but Corrado reacted quickly by saying: - Wait a moment, for now I'll show
you that they have two legs- and shouted violently: - Hohò-,
several times so that the frightened cranes woke up, lowered the other leg
and ran away.

-Did you see?- Corrado said-
it's now clear that they have two legs.

At this point, Chichibìo had
a flash of genius.

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Here the tale (freely
adapted from Boccacio's text) was interrupted.

The story as a matter of fact
ends with a Chichibìo's quip: "But, sir, you did not shout 'hoho' at that
crane yesterday!" which transforms Corrado's anger into a loud laugh.

The clues that could lead to
the right conclusion were:

-first of all, the overall tenor of the tale which in good measure
is that of a continual gamble. We come across a gamble for the
first time when Chichibìo maintains that cranes have only one leg and
one foot;

for the second time when Corrado feels the need for
proving that they have two legs almost as if it were not known and taken
for granted;

for the third time when Chichibìo states that he is
able to prove his assertion;

for the fourth time when Chichibìo, on seeing that
cranes stand on a leg if they sleep, keeps his thesis;

therefore,
when Corrado shouts at the cranes and forces them to lower the other leg
to run away, another gamble must take place, Chichibìo's
answer must necessarily pertain to this category;

-finally, as far as the concrete content of Chichibìo's reply is
concerned, when Corrado shouts "Hohò" repeatedly at the cranes, so that
they lower the other leg, the cook is said to have had a flash of
genius, on observing what was happening at that moment (and what
presumably had not happened the day before). Then his remark must read
like this: "But, sir, you did not shout 'Hoho' at that crane yesterday
evening, thus it was left only with a leg!"

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Some questions

But what are the results?

Does any difference among the
different conditions emerge by comparing correct and wrong answers? Which
among the three situations is the best to "think"?

To what extent is it possible
to say that the most recurring condition in our schools, that of
studying, activates "thinking abilities"?

Is it true what many teachers
support, that "studying seriously" (whatever it means in our schools) is
the best way to develop "thinking"?

Is "true studying"
intrinsically "thinking"?

Let us examine the results,
to see if these questions can be answered (see table 1).

Note on table 1:a certain part of
incorrect answers was based on expectations, that is on what "I would like
to happen now"; others were either the output of their flights of fancy or
were grounded on "What I have heard happens in cases like this".

Students were almost
reluctant to take the elements present in the tales into consideration
(even if in an inferior measure in the second and in the third condition),
notwithstanding they knew them. This reluctance was ascertained later when
it was possible to go back to many classes and discuss their answers with
pupils.

A chi square analysis of
the difference between correct and incorrect answers across the three
conditions shows that this difference is statistically significant, X² (2,
N= 141)=40.089, p ‹ .001, 2-sided.

As it can be seen by
observing the table, there is no equality between studying,
playing and reading, as far as the ability to foresee the
conclusion is concerned, because the difference between correct and
incorrect answers across the three conditions is statistically significant
(see note on table 1).

The best condition is the
third, that of simple reading, if thinking, at least the
second type of thinking (which was defined above as
extrapolative) must take place. Afterwards, there is playing
while, as a matter of fact, studying seems the worst situation if
one at the same time wants pupils to think! This seems to contradict many
teachers' saying, "thinking is an output of studying".

Different suppositions could
be made as far as this strange result is concerned. It could be stated,
for example, that the cognitive load imposed on students in the third
situation prevents them from calmly and completely considering all the
available data. There is a problem, though, with this hypothesis: in
absolute terms the playing condition was not very different if true
impact on memory is considered; notwithstanding this, in the second case
results were considerably better.

It could be that in the
studying condition there is an extra load due to pupils' attempts to
remember not only the elements of the story, but all the minute details
too, etc.

It could be also that under
this circumstance the ability to interconnect all the available elements
diminishes and this hampers the production of useful results.

The
available data do not allow a clear answer to these questions.

During the discussion phase,
which was briefly mentioned in the note on the table 1 (see), the
most frequent reaction of students who had answered wrongly was simply:
"Now everything is clear, but at that moment I did not think of it, I do
not know why".

It can only be hypothesised
that there is something in the cognitive process called studying
that directs one's mind towards other operations instead of productive
thinking.

Other studies are required,
it is necessary to involve diverse ages; it is also essential to replicate
international studies in the Italian context.

The current state of things
seems however to indicate that studying as such, by itself, is not
the best means of thinking (therefore many teachers' faith in it is
wrongly placed).

It is necessary a specific
effort to bring about generative thinking (which is essential and
agreed upon by all teachers); it is indispensable to train students in
it progressively, because thinking is not engendered by study nor by
nature in itself (as experience attests).

The
CoRT lessons by E. de Bono

In the
same school, the Istituto tecnico commerciale "Besta" in Ragusa,
(as in many other schools of the same area), the CoRT lessons by E. de Bono[11],
devised to foster thinking and creativity, have been applied repeatedly to
numerous classes (but different from these of the present experiment.

The
results of this teaching are encouraging[12],
as far as the objective that was set is concerned: namely the enhancement
of thinking.

The most recent available
data are those of the school year (2004/2005) which has just ended and
they, too, confirm the positive results obtained before.

E. de Bono takes a
perspective, which emerges from the present research too, as a starting
point for the CORT lessons: thinking is not an ineluctable output of
studying. Thinking is a specific ability which can be trained through
appropriate practice and thus improved, just like any other ability: no
one calls into question, for example, that a tennis player who trains
regularly is better at playing than one who does not.

In order to develop any
ability, though, it is necessary to know the parts it is composed of.

In the
case of tennis it means to understand, for example, what the basic
movements of the hand are; the various ways of holding the racket and of
hitting the ball; how to play a backhand and a lob, etc. A detailed
analysis of the accompanying movements of the body is necessary as well.
The concrete things on which exercises can be done are these, not the
generic "tennis playing" (and this is true of every other sport too![13]).

In the same way thinking is
divided by de Bono into its elementary constituents, and each of them is
given a specific name, very easy to remember and useful to focus pupils'
attention on it: this makes the training of students conceivable.

Each CORT lesson illustrates
one of these fundamental aspects, but it is not a theoretical
dissertation, it is not abstract information, it is mainly organised as a
series of exercises done on various concrete subjects.

The lessons, in their basic
format, can be taught, for an hour a week, in a school year (for about
20-30 hours in all). They are suitable for students from elementary to
university level.

The data amassed until now
point out that the CoRT lessons are efficacious, while study in
itself is not enough to promote thinking.

To get the right content is
important for one's future, but it is more important the use and the value
that we are able to attach to it. For this reason thinking is so vital and
deserves more attention than now in our schools.

[4]
Tidona G. (2004), Thinking and Learning- The Results of an
Experiment, paper presented at the Fifth International Conference
on Creative Thinking, organised by the University of Malta in June
2004.